posted
ROFL...soooooooo much to comment on there....
Sidestepping a Senate confirmation fight for now Obama stopped short of nominating Warren to actually head the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Instead, his action will let the Harvard Law School professor and expert on bankruptcy move quickly to shape the bureau.
Translation: Not caring that the Senate couldn't\wouldn't confirm her, he put her in charge anyway.
"Never again will folks be confused or misled by pages of barely understandable fine print that you find in agreements for credit cards or mortgages or student loans," Obama said, standing alongside Warren and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the White House Rose Garden.
Translation: As opposed to 2000+ page bills of legalese abdicating law making power to Presidential appointees...they're clear...right?
Warren has spent the past two years running the Congressional Oversight Panel, charged with monitoring the Treasury Department's handling of the $700 billion bank rescue fund known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. She stepped down from the panel just after Friday's announcement.
Translation: Because the TARP money has been spent without hiccup exactly as it was intended as per the TARP law...that gives her street cred!
House financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a fan of Warren's,
Translation: If you like Frank...you'll love her!! IF you happen NOT to like Frank...well....
Frank said Warren now has until the end of the president's first term in January of 2013 to set up the agency. Asked whether Obama should nominate a director soon, Frank replied: "Why?...The administration has found a way to put the best possible person in charge of it. I'm satisfied with that for now."
Translation: Why worry about silly little things like Senate confirmations and established precedence? We can avoid all that legal stuff by just claiming that the post is temporary.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: That's what it's come to, and you got nobody to blame if you support stealth filibusters and secret holds.
No, Tex, I don't support either. I fully believe in up\down votes with every Senator voting...not "present", but actual yes or no. That way EVERYONE will be accountable for their votes.
Please understand this one part clearly, Tex...
Precedent
This, whether used before or not, adds to the formation of precedent for completely eliminating Senate oversight. Confirmations are useless if the President (of either party) can simply appoint who they want (no matter how controversial) on an 'interim' basis and sidestep the Senate altogether.
Add this to what I mentioned above about how these laws are being written to allow Presidential appointees to MAKE LAWS instead of applying the laws set forth by Congress. Look up the last three major laws and do a search for "as determined by the (insert Secretary of Whatever)". They will make the laws...without ANY input\vote. And yes, I DO add the Patriot Act into this pool of bad laws.
posted
No, Tex, I don't support either. I fully believe in up\down votes with every Senator voting...not "present", but actual yes or no. That way EVERYONE will be accountable for their votes.
Look, I don't know whether you identify as Tea Party or mainstream GOP or whatever conservatist. But the facts are simply this:
1) Senate blockade (notably, the small biz bill squeaked through)
2) a bunch of lies have been spread about the president, because the far right has been successful in spreading malmemes
3) this polarization of American society traces to:
a) minorities (including wimmen and kweers and all in-between) count, too--under LBJ
b) Nixon's decoupling of the dollar
And you know what? Despite the front-porch rhetoric about morals, religion, family values, etc.?
Most people hashing it out on THE BACK PORCH could NOT care less whether you're homo, hetero, wimmen's lib or what-the-phukever. The main thing we want is jobs. Am I right?
This constant, continual assault on Obama is counterproductive. Not saying he's a savior, but damn, he's trying.
What do you fear would happen if Obama could realize all his goals?
quote:Look, I don't know whether you identify as Tea Party or mainstream GOP or whatever conservatist
While I like some of the values each claim to espouse, Tex, I identify specifically only with my faith and then my country...in that order. Take what shots anyone will, I stand by it. (shrug)
While I don't dispute that the Senate is gridlocked...this isn't the way to 'fix' anything. Once you start (continue) to act as though the law\Constitution doesn't matter, what else but Tyranny (no matter how pretty a costume it may wear) is left? Senate confirmations were specifically intended to place a check\balance on the President. Remove that and what can't he do? If we write the laws so that his people make the laws without any voting\debate whatsoever how do we call ourselves a Republic?
quote:This constant, continual assault on Obama is counterproductive.
Yes, and no. We SHOULD be debating his policies. But we're not. Neither side is debating them honestly. Why is that? I don't single out either side, but I would love to get your take on this, Tex.
Why is neither side being honest in talking about what Obama's policies are?
quote:Not saying he's a savior, but damn, he's trying.
This leads to your last question, but I wanted to interject something first. Do you disagree that he has been treated like a savior by the media\left leaning populance? Remember the Nobel prize...
quote:What do you fear would happen if Obama could realize all his goals?
This is the REAL question, Tex...what IS it that I personally am afraid of if he had free reign?
I am afraid that History will repeat itself. I have read enough history to have come to believe in two specific things that make me fear what Obama claims to believe...
1) That economic 'equality' can be forced. This is the basis of all of his wealth redistribution talk. That the Government can impose wealth equality on a free people. You CANNOT do that without taking away certain freedoms. Every Marxist\Socialist\Populist movement in history has started with this premise and ALL of them have ended in tyranny and bloodshed.
and
2) That it's Government's job to take care of people. This is really a philosophical point that is more important that I believe most realize. I think he honestly believes that given nothing more than the 'chance' to succeed, that most will fail. It thus behooves the Government to 'assure' that noone fails...or has hard times...or has to actually rise or fall on their own efforts.
Take him at his word, Tex. Look, impartially, at what he has said. Not through the lens of 'anti Obama' the Right uses, nor the 'All Hail our Dear Leader' from the Left. Just listen...
quote:Originally posted by T e x: No, Tex, I don't support either. I fully believe in up\down votes with every Senator voting...not "present", but actual yes or no. That way EVERYONE will be accountable for their votes.
Look, I don't know whether you identify as Tea Party or mainstream GOP or whatever conservatist. But the facts are simply this:
1) Senate blockade (notably, the small biz bill squeaked through)
2) a bunch of lies have been spread about the president, because the far right has been successful in spreading malmemes
3) this polarization of American society traces to:
a) minorities (including wimmen and kweers and all in-between) count, too--under LBJ
b) Nixon's decoupling of the dollar
And you know what? Despite the front-porch rhetoric about morals, religion, family values, etc.?
Most people hashing it out on THE BACK PORCH could NOT care less whether you're homo, hetero, wimmen's lib or what-the-phukever. The main thing we want is jobs. Am I right?
This constant, continual assault on Obama is counterproductive. Not saying he's a savior, but damn, he's trying.
What do you fear would happen if Obama could realize all his goals?
Your error is belief. You've become numb to logic and beholden to the warm (Though blank) stare of he who is known as Obama.
He's trying..
Come on man.
Is that not the same phrase being parroted about every broadcast news channel 24/7?
Why be so unoriginal?
At the very least change trying for effort and substitue he's for at least.
Add some flair.
He's trying?.. lol
Next will be the same mess of poorly crafted comments that claim he was given this mess to clean up.
That all might be true in a universe where the parties we "elect" were in any way not one in the same.
But we ain't there and that ain't him.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
in the most egalitarian economy we've seen, the ultra rich were taxed very heavily, 70 to 90 per cent.
Yes, I realize those were nominal rates, not effective rates. Still, it was much higher--and the ultra-rich showed no disinclination for acquiring more wealth.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be wishing to burn myself were that the case.
The notion that taking money out of the economy is what puts more money into the economy is a flawed premise...
This all stems from the idea that corporations can not be trusted. That's the key. The entirety of the current "Liberal" movement is that. The soul of the "conservative", renamed, witlessly, the "Tea Party" movement is that the government can not be trusted.
Problem is... The government is a corporation.. says so on every bit of legislation. Problem is.. Corporations are the government... Say so by simply us witnessing it...
My position is we need no governance. I argue that you... Tex.. You are a decent and kind man and I need no control over you. If left to your own you will do the things that you will to ensure your survival and the survival of those around you. If you should happen to fall ill of mind and desire to destroy all you survey someone will surely destroy that ambition before you destroy all that someone else surveys.
It is the way of biology..
It is the end result we all seek.. Though nuanced into forgetting.
We will never escape the reality of our purpose no matter how far we think we are in this momentary pause we think is the goal.
To fear freedom is to fall a slave before the ones who wish to eliminate growth.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Something I have learned from dealing with republican obstructionist.
By the way when you use terms, like means of production, a phrase that Marx coined it shows me what you are reading. But after all its not hard to believe that you are reading Marx most conservatives have wild swings in there life.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something I have learned from dealing with republican obstructionist.
Justifying one's own bad behavior with other's bad behavior is not becoming, Ray...
quote:By the way when you use terms, like means of production, a phrase that Marx coined it shows me what you are reading.
It also shows that I'm reading.
quote:But after all its not hard to believe that you are reading Marx most conservatives have wild swings in there life.
LOL
I have alot of interest in the 'reasons' behind opinions...even opinions I don't agree with. Hence my current tag line...Until one understands what drives them, one cannot evaluate if it is right or wrong...they are merely being acted upon instead of doing the acting.
posted
seeking,Yes you are reading today tea party today commie next week
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Keep looking to the past, Tex. I'm sure that will fix today's issues.
Who is rioting in the streets in Greece right now? It's the Unions, Tex. Who do the Unions support right now? That's who's wetting their appetite for entitlements. That's who's setting us (the taxpayers) up to have to fund their underfunded pensions...and when everything the Dems are promising CAN'T possibly be paid...Greece happens...
Here is Utah, we DID deal with our rep. Bennett is out. Can you say that in Texas?
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Tell me, Ray...which party does this sound like to you?
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Abolition of property? Abolition of inheritance? Confiscation of property from emigrants? State run communication?
la de da la de dum la de poop
There is one point near the top
quote:A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
that can sound like the democratic agenda (though our taxes are so low right now compared to the average that we would have to DRASTICALLY increase tax burden in order to get there) and there are a couple points that represent certain segments of America but don't have much to do with either party.
Beyond that it's all sensationalist 'guilty-by-association' bullcrap.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. I don't see Dems clamoring for a Flat Tax. Who's trying to deny only the wealthy their current tax rates?
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Who clamors for increases in estate taxation?
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
Who just killed private student loans? Which party forms the political support for Fannie and Freddie?
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Labor Unions anyone? Which side of the fence do they lean, Ray?
I could make a case for one or two more from the list, but I'll leave it there. Just for a parting note...which side of the political spectrum does Communism sit?
posted
Why is it that none of the Democrats running this fall are campaigning on the passing of Obama care and the stimulus? It is so bad that many dems will not even put "Democrat" or the donkey on their commercials, ads, and signs. The only one embracing Obama seems to be Nancy Pelosi, and she is as delusional as ever. She just said the other day that Democrats are going to win this fall. Sure Nancy.....sure.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As of last week, First Premier was offering a card with an annual fee of $75. That's 25 percent of the $300 credit limit. But it also has a $95 "processing fee" that must be paid before the customer gets the card.
It's perfectly legal, says First Premier. "The credit card act does not preclude fees charged prior to the account being opened," says Darrin Graham, the bank's vice president for marketing. So, the $95 fee doesn't count.
quote:According to investigators and patient advocates who have worked with consumers to resolve problems, patients frequently aren't even aware they're applying for a credit card; many think they're providing financial information to work out an extended payment agreement with their doctor or dentist.
Once they get the card, more unpleasant surprises can be ahead.
quote:And yes, of course the banks will find ways to game the new rules. But that's why we now have a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to guard our backs. So let's get Elizabeth Warren on the job, pronto!
posted
I agree with SF, if you are dumb enough to sign for it you get what you deserve. It might not be quality business, but cmon.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you condone deception and fraud? Shameful.
That's beneath you, Tex. Even on a bad day.
Prove that either happened. Did either situation involve the witholding of information? Or was it simply laziness (in not reading the papers one was signing) or buyers remorse?
quote:Nah, no point to the Senate thing.
Or any of that other 'Constitutional Crap'. Right? Ends and means and all that....
posted
Tex how are the markets treating you these days
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tex, I'm laughing off the spin put on both stories.
In neither article did it mention anything that these companies are doing is illegal. The closest thing there was the allegation that one guy signed people up without their permission. I doubt it since with no sigs from the patients good luck in proving they wanted the card.
If they signed paperwork requesting/accepting the cards without reading what they were signing I find it difficult to muster a whole lot of sympathy. Even worse, if knowing that missing payment deadlines would increase one's rate...and one misses such deadlines...what room do one have to complain when one's rate goes up?!
Most of this 'Consumer Protection' would be unneccesary if people would read what they sign, make their payments on time, and live up to their obligations.
posted
Oh, and we've been over the Filibuster before. The Constitution allows both Houses of Congress to establish their own procedural policies. The Senate established the filibuster at some point and neither party has moved to eliminate it.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
